Consistency. Consistency. Consistency.
We’ve all heard it, it’s pretty much in the branding bible (right after differentiation). But why? Isn’t new and shiny and ‘cutting-edge’ always better? Not always.

Maintaining a consistent brand identity has one massive benefit – recognition. That recognition leads to trust. People don’t like strangers and certainly don’t like change. It upsets them, makes them uncomfortable.

It used to be that a consumer would have to be exposed to a brand or ad 3 times before they would even consider making a purchase. With the current environment of information overload, that number has grown to 17. Getting to 17 impressions can take years, especially with a tiny marketing budget.

As brand builders, we like new. We LOVE new. We love designing logos and crafting key messaging and redesigning websites. It’s the fun stuff. For me, there is really nothing like flipping to a clean sheet of paper in my notebook or hitting Control+N in Illustrator. But here is one huge disadvantage to ‘new’. It reduces recognition and awareness. With change comes confusion. Change makes consumers think too much. They start to question your credibility and stability. “Why are they changing the logo? Did someone buy them out? Did the management change? Are they going to start selling different types of products? Are sales suffering? Are they hiding something?” These unconscious thoughts don’t occur with a 10-year-old logo.

This doesn’t mean logos or brands should never change. Often, there is good reason for change. They brand identity might be outdated or the company may have changed its strategy. However, when an established identity needs a change, think evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Think revitalize instead of redesign. After all, weren’t increasing consistency and building awareness some of the reasons you developed a brand in the first place?

Look at the top 10 Best Global Brands according to Interbrand. What do they have in common? Brand identity evolution, not revolution.

1. Coca- Cola

2. IBM

3. Microsoft

4. GE

5. Nokia

6. Toyota

7. Intel

8. McDonald’s

9. Disney

10. Google

Beth LaPierre is a Brand + Creative Strategist. When Beth is not helping build brands she’s on her snowboard, spray painting something, or drinking copious amounts of espresso. Follow Beth on Twitter.

If you liked this article, please help spread the news on the following sites:

This notion of incremental evolution is definitely relevant lately. Pizza Hut told us they were going to start referring to themselves as “The Hut” a month or two ago. More recently, Radio Shack told us they were going to refer to themselves as “The Shack”. I can’t see the brilliance in gutting the key component of your brand in favor of, in these two examples, a literally empty shell.

Pizza Hut sells more than pizza. We all get that.

Radio Shack doesn’t just sell radios. Okay, but their key category now is cell phones which are literally built upon… guess what? Radios.

I guess where this ties into what you said above is that you mentioned brand changes being driven by the external strategic or creative side. The business side needs to show restraint as well when declining market breeds enough desperation to dramatically revamp the brand.